This case, unlike other more mundane cases involving Trump policies that may come before the court, clearly places Donald Trumps words, personality and credibility in issue.

One of the Justices already has expressed a view on Trumps credibility. In July 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginbsburg was quoted in a CNN interview deriding Trump as a faker....

Justice Ginsburg made two other negative public statements about Trump during the campaign...

Justice Ginsburgs negative comments about Trump, though less direct, continued after inauguration....

In a case in which Trumps campaign comments are front and center, how can Ginsburg hear a case in which she has complained publicly about Trump and Trumps campaign?

This is not a situation where a Justice merely is presumed to have political leanings (dont they all?), or is affiliated with one political party more than another. Justice Ginsburg has publicly questioned Trumps credibility, and that credibility is an issue in the case as it presents itself in the 4th Circuit decision from which review is sought.

Justice Ginsburg cannot be removed from the case. The judicial code cited by the Washington Post editorial doesnt apply to Supreme Court Justices. She would have to recuse herself voluntarily.

Nothing in the Constitution or federal law establishes any terms or mandate for Supreme Court judges to recuse themselves on any matter. Some few have on occasion, by choice, not that they were required to.

Ethically Ginsburg should recuse herself. Legally she is not required to.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.